The Repeat Offender Prevention Project (ROPP) supports county-based efforts to implement and evaluate strategies aimed at reducing crime among the small group of juvenile offenders who may be at greatest risk of becoming serious repeat offenders (the "8% population" identified in studies conducted by the Orange County Probation Department). As the state agency responsible for administering the ROPP, the Board of Corrections (BOC) submits an annual status report to the Legislature. This is the fourth such report.

The 1996/97 Budget Act (Chapter 162) included $3.5 million for the ROPP and designated seven counties to receive funds: Fresno, Humboldt, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, San Mateo and Solano. The 1997/98 Budget Act (Chapter 282) augmented funding for these seven projects by $3.5 million and extended the grant expiration date from June 30, 1999 to June 30, 2000. In 1998, the Legislature passed AB 2594 (Chapter 327), which made the City/County of San Francisco eligible for ROPP funds and extended the grant ending date another year. In addition, the 1998/99 Budget Act (Chapter 324) appropriated another $4 million to the ROPP. Funds available through 1998/99 total nearly $10.5 million for grants set to expire on June 30, 2001.

While each ROPP program is unique based on the county's specific needs and availability of local resources, all programs are based on a common "8% model" with the following characteristics:

• The target population is younger first-time probation wards with a multi-problem profile.

• Programs involve a collaborative team approach to case assessment and management.

• Both the participating youth and his/her family receive services.

Projects in the initial seven counties were operational by June of 1997. San Francisco's project became operational in November 1999. Biannual progress reports submitted to the BOC, coupled with site and monitoring visits conducted by BOC staff, indicate that counties are facing similar issues in their efforts to administer successful projects. The latest reports (for the six-month period ending in December 1999) reveal that the most common issues continue to be staff turnover; the number of program referrals; lack of transportation for youth and their families; language and cultural barriers between staff and participants; and difficulties in collecting data for required outcome variables.

To help determine the effectiveness of intervention strategies in reducing recidivism and improving school performance, each county must conduct an evaluation comparing juveniles who receive the ROPP enhanced services to a like group of juveniles who receive standard probation services. Data provided to the BOC by counties indicate that as of May 1, 2000, a total of 1,213 juveniles had been admitted into ROPP programs, nearly 90% of the projected total for the grant period. Although counties have encountered problems in collecting data, preliminary findings reported to the BOC on the statutorily required outcome measures are encouraging. While not conclusive because of the small sample sizes and insufficient follow-up periods involved, these statewide findings indicate that:

• Juveniles in the treatment group are showing greater improvements in average school days attended, classes passed, grade point average and credits earned.

• Although juveniles in the treatment group are more often tested for drug use, the comparison group has a higher percentage of positive test results.

• Petitions filed and sustained for juveniles in the treatment group are less often for felonies compared to juveniles receiving only traditional probation services.

These statewide findings, along with early results and case studies for each individual program, indicate that the ROPP appears to be moving in the right direction – and, ultimately, may prove effective in curbing recidivism among juvenile offenders.

The Legislature established the Repeat Offender Prevention Program in 1994 (Chapter 730), contingent upon an appropriation of funding, as a three-year demonstration project designed to test strategies for curbing recidivism among the small percentage of first-time juvenile offenders (the "8% population) identified in studies conducted by the Orange County Probation Department as most at risk of becoming repeat serious offenders.

The main goal of the ROPP, as delineated by the Legislature, is to develop and implement a cost-effective multiagency, multidisciplinary program that targets youth displaying behavior that may lead to delinquency and recidivism. Although county programs differ based on unique needs and available local resources, each demonstration project includes a focus on both the youth and his/her family; an assessment by a multidisciplinary team; formal case management and service planning; and integrated service delivery. By law, counties must implement intervention strategies within the parameters of community protection and offender accountability.

The 1996/97 Budget Act (Chapter 162) allocated a total of $3.5 million for the implementation and administration of the ROPP in seven designated counties: Fresno, Humboldt, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, San Mateo and Solano. BOC staff worked with these counties in establishing a formula for distributing available funds. The 1997/98 Budget Act (Chapter 282) augmented funding for the ROPP by $3.5 million and extended the grant expiration date from June 30, 1999 to June 30, 2000. In 1998, the Legislature made the City/County of San Francisco eligible for ROPP funds and extended the grant ending date to June 30, 2001 (Chapter 327). In addition, the 1998/99 Budget Act (Chapter 324) appropriated another $4 million to the ROPP.

As shown below, local assistance funding for the ROPP totals nearly $10.5 million through 1998/99 (the Legislature set aside five percent of each fiscal year’s appropriation for costs incurred by the BOC in administering the program.)

The Legislature established the following requirements for program administration, participant eligibility, and project evaluation.

Administration: Each ROPP project must be under the on-site administration of the county’s Chief Probation Officer.

Eligibility: Minors must be 15 ½ years of age or younger, first-time wards of the juvenile court and under the supervision of the probation department. In addition, minors must be evaluated and found to have at least three of the following risk factors (See Appendix A – Intake Assessment Guidelines):

• School behavior and performance problems (attendance problems, suspension/expulsion, failure of two or more classes);

• Family problems (poor supervision/control, history of domestic violence, child abuse/neglect, criminal family members);

• Substance abuse problems (regular use of alcohol or drugs); and/or

• High-risk pre-delinquent behaviors (stealing, chronic runaway, gang membership or association).

Evaluation: Each project must include a formal research component that compares juveniles who receive enhanced probation services (treatment group) to those who receive traditional probation services (comparison group). Assignment to the two groups must be made on a random basis. Each county must submit a final program evaluation report to the BOC following the grant ending date of June 30, 2001. In addition, counties must submit written progress reports to the BOC every six months. At a minimum, the biannual progress reports and final program evaluation must examine the following four outcome variables:

• Number, subject matter and disposition of subsequent petitions to declare the minor a ward of the juvenile court;

• Number of days served in any local or state correctional facilities;

• Number of days of school attendance during the current or most recent semester; and

• Minor’s grade point average for the most recently completed school semester.

In carrying out its statutory responsibilities related to program administration, the BOC and its staff have worked closely with ROPP counties. During the first year of the program, for example, the BOC sponsored training on the "8% population" and MAARY-C program models. BOC staff also held several meetings to reach consensus among the participating counties regarding funding distribution, eligibility criteria, and evaluation requirements and to clarify legislative requirements related to program planning, operation and evaluation. This informational and consensus-building process culminated in the submission of detailed program implementation plans by all ROPP counties.

As project implementation activities got under way, BOC staff began providing technical assistance to counties as needed, conducting site and monitoring visits, and holding biannual project manager meetings to share information and resolve problems in program implementation, administration and evaluation. In addition, BOC staff developed and distributed two documents (both of which were updated in September 1999) to provide project and fiscal management guidance to counties.

During 1999/00, BOC staff continued these project monitoring and technical assistance efforts and held two meetings with the Chief Probation Officers of the ROPP counties to discuss program and evaluation activities. The Chief Probation Officers subsequently created a Task Force to identify key elements and strategies for potential program expansion and replication.

As part of its project oversight process, the BOC requires counties to submit progress reports every six months that describe any issues encountered in program operation and evaluation activities. These reports, coupled with site and monitoring visits, indicate that counties are facing ongoing and similar challenges in their efforts to administer projects. Based on the reports submitted in February of 2000 for the six-month period ending in December 1999, the most common issues are: 1) staff turnover; 2) program referrals; 3) transportation; 4) language and cultural barriers; and 5) difficulty in collecting some required data elements. The following is an explanation of each of these issues:

• Staff Turnover: Several counties have reported problems with staff turnover that has stemmed in part from the multifaceted demands and expanded responsibilities placed on ROPP probation officers and in part from promotions. To address this issue, individual counties have devoted additional time to staff training and maintenance. Counties also organized, in cooperation with the BOC, an informational workshop in April of 1999 related to secondary trauma, a condition that often occurs in individuals who work with at-risk youth and their families. In April of 2000, a training session was held on stress management/staff maintenance.

• Program Referrals: The majority of counties have expressed concern about the number of juveniles being referred to their project, which has been lower than expected. To increase participation, counties have expanded target population areas, provided additional staff training and/or clarified procedures to ensure the referral of all eligible youth for screening.

• Transportation: Although counties recognized in their individual needs assessment that transportation would pose a challenge, they have reported that the lack of transportation has had a greater than anticipated impact on school attendance and the ability of minors and their family members to access ROPP services and community resources. In response, some ROPP staff began providing transportation assistance when time permits. Other counties have secured transportation services via contract or leasing arrangements. Together, these efforts have increased access to schools and services for youth and their families.

• Cultural Competency: ROPP caseloads typically include ethnically diverse populations, which presents a challenge for probation officers and case managers in most counties. In addition to continuing to recruit bilingual staff and volunteers, counties are working to secure translators who can assist field staff in overcoming language and cultural barriers.

Data Collection: In terms of evaluation issues, the collection of current and complete data continues to pose a problem for counties. In particular, counties report they are experiencing difficulties in obtaining meaningful information for the two required school-related outcome variables, attendance and achievement. The difficulties stem from the considerable movement by some minors from school to school, the variable nature of grade point average as a standard measure of achievement across schools, and the unwillingness of schools to provide this information for minors in the comparison group and minors who are no longer wards. In their continuing effort to rectify this situation, which has impacted counties in varying degrees, counties have implemented specific strategies aimed at enhancing the collection of data. These strategies include providing special training for project staff and school administrators and dedicating additional staff time to enhance data collection efforts.

The following is a brief description of each county’s project, including target areas and populations. For more information about a particular project, readers should contact the county (See Appendix B for the Program Directory).

Fresno County: This program uses a wrap-around service approach emphasizing family and community strengths. Each ward assigned to the treatment group is assessed by a multidisciplinary team that is comprised of representatives from probation, law enforcement, school districts, mental health, social services, Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Council, Boys and Girls Club, parents and a family case advocate, if desired. The team then develops a service plan for each ward. The assigned probation officer is responsible for implementing and coordinating the recommended services, and the assessment team periodically reviews the case plan to determine progress and/or the need for modification. The probation officer is also responsible for ongoing case management; however the officer receives assistance from student interns. The project contracts for psychological services and parenting education classes. Fresno County anticipates that its project will involve 160 first-time wards in selected urban and rural areas. The urban component includes Fresno zip codes 93702, 93703, 93704, 93705, 93706, 93725, 93726, 93727 and 93728. The rural element serves Clovis, Selma, Sanger and Reedley.

Orange County: This program, which serves first-time wards, is a collaborative effort of the Probation Department, the County Departments of Education and Health Care (Mental Health and Behavioral Health Services) and other contracted agencies, including Children’s Services Program and the American Academy of Pediatrics. The Youth and Family Resource Center (YFRC) is the primary source of services, bringing together the ward, the family and a broad range of service providers in one location. An individualized service plan is developed for each referral by the on-site assessment team composed of a probation officer, teacher(s), counselors who are responsible for afternoon recreation/community service/life skills programming, a substance abuse counselor, mental health staff, a nurse practitioner, and intensive in-home family counselors. Others may participate in the development of the plan, including social services agency representatives or a community case advocate. The majority of services, including school, are offered at the YFRC. Linkages to other services are made as necessary. A transportation component is included in the program to ensure that families have access to needed services and that minors attend school daily. Orange County expects that it will serve 280 juveniles in the cities of Anaheim, Buena Park and Fullerton during the course of this project.

San Francisco: The San Francisco County Probation Department's ROPP, the Paul Robeson and Diego Rivera Academy, is a day treatment center for seventh through ninth grade students. This collaborative project joins the unique perspectives of four city and county departments (Juvenile Probation, Children's Mental Health Services, Human Services, and the San Francisco Unified School District) with a non-profit agency (the Performing Arts Workshop). The Academy provides a setting where students learn through a strengths-based integrated arts program. The Probation Department provides transportation to school and crisis management for students. The Human Services Department provides a Child Welfare Worker who case manages the families and also runs parent support groups. Children's Mental Health Services provide individual, family and group therapy on site. San Francisco anticipates that its project will serve 90 juveniles who reside throughout the City and County.

The ROPP counties estimate that a total of 1,350 juveniles will participate in the demonstration programs during the grant period. Approximately half of these juveniles will receive the enhanced program services (treatment group); the other half will receive traditional probation services (comparison group).

As of May 1, 2000, there were a total of 1,213 program participants, representing 89.9% of the projected total for the duration of the project. As shown in Table 1, progress toward achieving the desired number of program participants varies considerably by county, ranging from a low of 18.9% for San Francisco, to a high of 132.7% for San Diego.

The enabling legislation for ROPP calls for program participants to be evaluated every 6 months for a period of two years. Table 2 shows length of time in the program for all juveniles who became program participants on or before December 31, 1999 (N= 909). As indicated in the table, a total of 164 juveniles have 24 or more months of program involvement. This represents 18.0% of all participants as of December 31, 1999 (see "Percent Total" column), and 12.1% of the estimated 1,350 total program participants by the end of the grant period (see "Percent Grant" column).

Based on the figures reported in Table 2, as of the June 30, 2001 end of grant date, a total of 673 juveniles will have 24 or more months in the program. This represents 49.9% of the projected grant total of 1,350. Another 236 juveniles, or 17.5% of the projected grant total, will have at least 18 months of program involvement, and an unknown number of juveniles (i.e., those not enrolled in the program as of December 31, 1999) will have less than 18 months in the program.

Table 3 summarizes the background characteristics of the participating juveniles and distinguishes juveniles in the treatment group from those in the comparison group. Approximately four-fifths (79.4%) of all participants are male; 42.8% are Hispanic, 22.1% are black, and 22.6% are white. Almost all of the juveniles exhibit the risk factors for family issues (98.6%), school issues (95.9%) and pre-delinquent behavior (94.4%); and roughly three-fifths of the juveniles exhibit the risk factor for substance abuse (59.5%). Many of the juveniles come from families characterized by violence (40.8%) and criminal family influence (56.0%); two-fifths of the juveniles (40.2%) identify with gangs; and four-fifths associate with criminal peers (83.2%). Roughly one in five are frequent users of drugs (21.8%), and roughly one in seven (14.1%) are frequent users of alcohol. Although the vast majority of the juveniles are currently enrolled in school (92.2%), two-thirds have had recent school attendance problems (71.8%) and behavior problems (64.7%), and about one-third (31.3%) are below grade level. Roughly two-fifths (41.4%) have prior referrals to probation for criminal offenses and about one-fifth (19.6%) have had a petition filed for an offense involving physical injury to a victim.

Chart 1 compares the initial services and terms of probation for the juveniles in the two groups. As first time wards, an approximately equal percentage of the juveniles in both groups are subject to the traditional enforcement-related conditions of search and seizure, drug/alcohol testing, restitution, court-ordered work, voluntary community service and fines. Restitution and volunteer community service are the least prevalent terms of probation for both groups, with restitution required on the part of about half of all juveniles and volunteer community service a requirement for about 30% of all juveniles. In contrast, over 90% of the juveniles in both groups are subject to search and seizure conditions, and about 75% of the juveniles in each group are subject to drug/alcohol testing.

Shown on the bottom right hand side of Chart 1 are non-enforcement services. A much higher percentage of the juveniles in the treatment group are receiving transportation for family members (72.7% versus .3%), parent education (72.2% versus 33.6%), tutoring (47.5% versus 1.5%), and mentoring (33.2% versus 6.9%). More juveniles in the treatment group are also attending classes (70.8%) and receiving counseling (90.9%), although over half of the juveniles in the comparison group are also attending classes (55.5%), and more than four-fifths of those in the comparison group are receiving counseling (84.7%).

Further evidence of program differences is reflected in Chart 2, which shows frequency of face-to-face contacts and transportation trips for juveniles in the two groups. The data reported are monthly averages for the first six months of program participation. As shown in the chart, the average monthly number of probation officer face-to-face contacts with juveniles in the treatment group was 4.56 compared to .82 for the comparison group. Similarly, the average monthly number of probation officer contacts with parents was far greater for juveniles in the treatment group (2.28 versus .33), as were the average monthly number of contacts with collateral individuals (2.48 versus .25) and the average monthly number of transportation trips provided to family members (4.88 versus.01).

There are two levels of evaluation being conducted on the ROPP projects: local evaluations of individual programs and a statewide evaluation by the BOC that encompasses all programs. While it is still too early to draw definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of the intervention strategies being tested by counties, early results are positive and indicate that the programs are moving in the right direction.

While all county programs are similar with respect to the juveniles served and the fundamental elements of, and approach to, providing program services, each project is characterized by unique features. For example, some programs have partnered with school districts to provide dedicated teachers and classrooms where all juveniles attend school together; in other programs, the juveniles continue to receive their education in existing educational facilities.

Programs also differ with respect to the range of services available, as well as the method of service delivery (e.g., some programs have dedicated "service centers" attended by the juveniles 8 hours a day). In recognition of these differences, and consistent with the language of the enabling legislation for the ROPP program, all counties are conducting local evaluations of their individual programs and documenting their progress in semi-annual reports submitted to the BOC.

A second-level evaluation that encompasses all ROPP programs is being conducted by the BOC’s researchers. The primary purpose of this evaluation is to provide a statewide perspective with respect to program implementation and results. In order to conduct this evaluation, all programs are using a common database that contains background information, program service information, and program outcome information for each juvenile. Each county includes an updated copy of the database with every semi-annual progress report submitted to the BOC. The BOC then aggregates the database information submitted by each program. The aggregated information is then processed by the BOC to conduct the second-level evaluation of "statewide findings."

Per the enabling legislation for ROPP, juveniles in the treatment and comparison groups must be evaluated every six months on the following outcomes:

• Number of Subsequent 602 Petitions;

• Number of Days Served in Local or State Correctional Facilities;

• Number of Days of School Attended During the Most Recent Semester; and

• Grade Point Average for the Most Recently Completed School Semester.

These outcomes and others are included in both the local evaluations and the statewide evaluation. Whereas the local evaluations include information and provide results specific to a particular program, the statewide evaluation provides a broader assessment of overall program implementation and impact based on more generic information. In this regard, results specific to a program may not be examined as part of the statewide evaluation. Also, results for a specific program may differ from results for all programs statewide. In the latter case, important lessons may be learned from comparing local evaluation findings with statewide findings.

Local Evaluation Results: Highlights of program-specific findings to date, as reported by local evaluators, are summarized below.

Fresno County’s treatment youth had a 60% drop in arrests for new law violations, demonstrated a less severe offense pattern overall and paid 58% more in restitution and fines than did the comparison youth.

Humboldt County’s results show that ethnic minority youth in the treatment group have significantly greater improvement in school performance (classes passed, grades earned) than the comparison group ethnic youth. Also, self-reported delinquent behavior scores for treatment youth decrease the longer they are in the program, whereas these scores increase over time for the comparison youth.

Los Angeles County’s ROPP program began operation in November 1999 and is already observing a reduction in delinquent behavior with only 8% of the treatment youth having had a law enforcement contact (new arrest, probation violation, or bench warrant) in contrast to 22% for the comparison group.

Orange County reports that treatment youth experience lower rates of absconding during the first six months (9% vs. 23%) and, by 12 months, have 31% fewer petitions filed overall, 43% fewer new law violations, and 26% fewer custody days, on average, than comparison youth. Also, after 12 months the treatment youth show a reduction in the proportion with substance abuse problems by 46% compared to an increase for the comparison youth of 42%.

San Diego County’s results indicate that the treatment youth are showing a reduction in their risk for involvement in criminal behavior from 98% to 36% and a reduction in their risk of school truancy and behavior problems from 83% to 32%.

San Francisco County, as the most recent addition to the project, does not yet have any results to report. It is unique, however, because the program is targeting even younger (less than 14.6 years of age) high-risk youth and involves a school-based collaboration with the San Francisco Performing Arts Workshop.

San Mateo County reports that treatment youth improved their grade point average by 125% vs. 51% for the comparison youth and, by 18 months, had earned 33% more credits and had 50% fewer suspensions than comparison youth.

Solano County’s results show that treatment youth have a lower school suspension rate and a 14% higher achievement in grade point average versus the comparison youth.

Statewide Findings: All statewide results are based on data submitted to the BOC as of December 31, 1999. Programs will remain operational until June 30, 2001 and many of the results are based on modest sample sizes. For these reasons, all results should be considered preliminary and may change as the programs are refined, juveniles are evaluated over longer time periods, and research sample sizes increase.

Educational Behavior and Achievement

Access to school records continues to be a problem for all programs. Consequently, findings related to educational conduct and progress are based on exceptionally small numbers of juveniles. All results reported involve comparisons of juveniles in the two groups (treatment and comparison) for whom data was available at both points in time (e.g., program entry and six months later). Due to the limited sample sizes, no results are reported for time periods greater than 12 months from program entry.

Figures 1 and 2 compare days of school attended for the two groups. Figure 1 compares the two groups at program entry and six months later; Figure 2 compares the two groups at program entry and 12 months later. For both figures there is a statistically significant increase in average school days attended for the treatment group only when compared to average school days attended prior to program entry. While the comparison group also shows some improvement, the magnitude of the improvement is not great enough to be statistically significant.

Figures 3 and 4 provide the same comparisons for number of classes passed (i.e., number of classes passed on most recent report card at program entry versus number of classes passed on most recent report at six months [Figure 3] and 12 months [Figure 4]). Here, also, the improvement in mean number of classes passed is statistically significant for the treatment group only.

Similar results are found for grade point average and high school credits earned. Figures 5 and 6 show changes in mean grade point average at six months (Figure 5) and 12 months (Figure 6). While both groups have improved mean grade point averages at both points in time, the gains are statistically significant for only the treatment group (from 1.11 to 2.00 at six months; from 1.18 to 2.49 at 12 months).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figures 7 and 8 show changes in mean total high school credits earned after 6 months (Figure 7) and 12 months (Figure 8). Both groups have non-significant gains at 6 months, and the gain at 12 months is statistically significant for the treatment group only (from 13.8 to 24.3 credits). Although results for educational behavior and achievement are based on very small sample sizes, and thus must be considered preliminary, they reflect a pattern of significant progress for juveniles in the treatment group compared to juveniles who receive standard probation services.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Completion of Court-Ordered Obligations

Chart 3 shows the relative completion rates for the two groups for the court-ordered obligations of restitution, fines, court-ordered work and community service. Data reported are the percent of juveniles in each group who had completed the obligation within 24 months of program entry. As reflected in the chart, completion rates for both groups are highest for court-ordered work and community service, but approximate only 50% for court-ordered work and about 40% for community service. Completion rates for fines and restitution are lower for both groups, approximating 30% for fines and 20% for restitution. None of the differences in completion rates for the two groups is statistically significant. Thus, at this point, there is no indication that ROPP juveniles complete obligations faster than juveniles who receive standard probation services.

Chart 4 shows the percentage of juveniles tested and the frequency of drug testing for juveniles in the two groups during each of three time periods from program entry: first six months; months 7-12; and months 13-18. For each time period, approximately 60% of juveniles in the treatment group tested, which is almost double the percentage for juveniles in the comparison group. Furthermore, the average number of tests per juvenile is almost twice as great for those in the treatment group (slightly over 4 times compared to slightly over two times). These differences between the two groups are statistically significant.

Chart 5 shows the percentage of positive tests for each group during the same time periods. Results show a higher percentage of positive tests for the comparison group, and the percentage is almost twice that of the treatment group at 7-12 months. The group differences are statistically significant at 6 months and 7-12 months, but not at 13-18 months. Overall, results show that juveniles in the treatment group are much more likely to be tested, are tested more frequently, and test positive less often.

Results with regard to time in custody subsequent to program entry are shown in Figure 9. Two indices are reported: percent of juveniles in custody, and average length of time for those in custody. Results are presented for both groups at 6 months and 7-12 months (from time of program entry). Approximately two-thirds of the juveniles in the treatment group were in custody at some time during each of the two time periods. A significantly lower percentage of juveniles in the comparison group were in custody during the first 6 months (52.6%). The differences between the two groups are not statistically significant at 7-12 months. Among those who were in custody, the average days served is greater for juveniles in the treatment group for both time periods, although the differences between the two groups are not statistically significant for either time period. Based on these findings, there is no evidence to date that ROPP reduces the frequency or duration of custody time when compared to standard probation services.

 

New Offenses

As shown in Chart 6, almost 60% of the juveniles in both groups have no new sustained petitions for criminal offenses, and the groups do not differ markedly with respect to either the number of juveniles with multiple sustained petitions or the average number of sustained petitions per juvenile. Significant group differences do exist, however, with respect to the percentage of highest filed petitions and highest sustained petitions that are for felonies.

As shown in Chart 7, the highest filed charge for 38.1% of the juveniles in the comparison group and 29.9% of those in the treatment group is a felony. The differences are even more pronounced for highest sustained charge, with felonies making up 32.4% of highest sustained offenses for the comparison group compared to 20.9% for the treatment group (see Chart 8). Thus, while preliminary findings provide no evidence at the statewide level that ROPP is reducing criminal filings, there is some evidence that those petitions filed and sustained are less often for more serious offenses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Warrants

Figure 10 shows preliminary results obtained for warrants. Both the percent of juveniles on warrant status and their mean days on warrant status are reported. Results are reported for both groups at 6 months and months 7-12 from time of program entry.

As shown in Figure 10, the percentage of juveniles on warrant status during the first 6 months is approximately 20% for both groups, but a significantly higher percentage of the juveniles in the comparison group are on warrant status during months 7-12 (39.1% versus 27.3%). The difference in the average days on warrant status for the two groups is not statistically significant during either time period; however, the average is almost 10 days higher for juveniles in the comparison group at months 7-12 (42.1 days versus 32.2 days for the treatment group).

Although these preliminary results are encouraging, more data are needed before any definitive conclusions can be reached regarding the impact of ROPP on reducing the level of absconding among those juveniles served by the program.

Case Studies: Although not "hard data," case studies outlining the impact individual ROPP programs are having on participating youth and their families provide meaningful insight on the challenges and efforts counties have undertaken with this grant as well as the positive benefits of the interventions being tested. For this reason, BOC staff requested two case studies from each ROPP grantee in April 2000 to include in this report (See Appendix C – Case Studies).